On Tue, 20 Feb, 2007 at 13:54:10 +0000, Matthew Stringer wrote: > On Tuesday 20 February 2007 10:28:24 Joe Morris (NTM) wrote: > > Jon Clausen wrote: > > > Just bear in mind that there have been occasions where 10.2 fails to > > > install Grub correctly, leaving the system unable to boot > > > > That just happened to me over the weekend. I eventually got it going, > > and it is running 10.2 just great now, but it was the strangest thing I > > ever saw.
Yeah, I hope I get time to check into it some more this weekend. I have a hard time parsing this next bit; > > I know now I do much prefer GRUB writing to the MBR by > > default. I think that would have saved me several hours work. - at least to the extent that Grub writing to the MBR (as is the default, is it not?) was what went wrong in my case... I think? > > If I had > > tried that machine remotely, It would have only been remote for as long > > as it took me to get there. Indeed... but that could conceivably be *some* time... ;) > I don't know if I'm not getting mails from this list but this is the first > reply I've received to my question. Any chance someone could resend the info? You didn't miss all that much. I basically just said that Google would be a good place to start... Anyways, Joe sent you the link in another mail. > I've got quite a few machines running 9.1, 9.3 and 10.0, would be nice to get > them all running 10.2 without having to feed CD's into them. Using 'remote-install' as an alternative to 'feeding CDs' sounds like the target hosts aren't *too* far away (?) In which case I wouldn't worry too much about the prospect of grub-install failure since you'd have physical access, once you got out of the chair... ;) /Jon -- YMMV -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
